Better start hoarding those 60-watt incandescents...

That's one I hadn't considered. Sometimes the heat (from an incandescent
bulb) is good for something.
However, wouldn't a snow-blocked light look like one with a power
failure? Around here, people treat those as 4-way stops.

--
11 days until the winter celebration (Thursday December 25, 2014
12:00:00 AM for 1 day).

I'd agree with Ed Pawlowski on shower heads.
I once switched from an old style head to a
water-saver type and the latter was much better.
The heads they make now are very good at very
low flow. I suspect, though, that good water
pressure is necessary to get a forceful stream
through those tiny holes.
I don't think much of low-flow toilets. It's
only recently that the design is catching up, so
that they can work properly with 1.6 gallons. For
years toilets were just retrofitted to hold less
water. Even now it's expensive to buy something
like a Toto that *really* works properly with 1.6
gallons. And even then, getting it through the toilet
isn't sufficient if it clogs the sewer pipe.
I find it odd, also, that the issue isn't in context.
If you live in S. California then conserving water is
crucial. Here in New England we run a hose for an
hour on our garden, just to keep it as green as
possible, then we go and save a gallon or two by
using a barely functional toilet.
With the lightbulbs, I pay < .15 per KWH for
electricity. If I sit at my computer for three
hours in the evening with my 75w light on, that's
about 3 cents of electricity. My computer/monitor is
probably using 4 or 5 times that. Given my use of
lighting (I don't leave them on when I'm not in a
room) I probably spend about 10 or 15 cents per
day on lights. That's hardly a big expense that
justifies jumping in to buy expensive, experimental
replacement bulbs. Like you, I have plenty of
incandescent bulbs to last for several years, by
which time the dust should have settled on what's
the best replacement option.
It's interesting how irrational we can be when it
comes to money. I think we all have our saving
quirks -- saving a few cents on electricity but then
blowing 10 times as much by leaving the TV on, or
buying a $4 coffee at Starbucks, or going for a
unnecessary drive in our car and wasting a couple
of gallons of gas. I don't know anyone who's fully
rational about money.
I wonder about your characterization of "federal
thugs", though. The simple fact is that we need
to start conserving and people won't do it by
themselves. People can't be forced to flush toilets
less often or to take shorter showers. It would
probably make most sense for men to just pis in the
sink. Why not? It all goes to the same place. :)
But we're not going to make those changes. The
only change that can be enforced is business
regulation: forcing toilet companies to make smaller
toilets.
wrote:
| > The era of incandescent light bulbs will soon be extinguished forever.
|
| Not in my house. When the federal thugs first started talking about
| banning light bulbs I stocked up. We have pretty much a lifetime supply
| in the basement of 40, 60, 75, and 100 watt bulbs as well as 50/100/150
| three-ways. (We also do not use low-flow toilets or shower heads.)
|
| --
| -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups
killfiled.)
|
| NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
| -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payback. Or lack of it. If a bulb burns a few hours a day, you want to
save as much as possible. Often, the closet light is on a minute while
you grab the blue jacket instead of the black one. It will take many
years, possibly decades, to pay back the $10 bulb with the savings. The
living room lamp that is on 12 hours a day will save you real money with
an LED.

Hmmm... You sound a little defensive there. Or are you always just rude?
In any case, for a 60W bulb, the difference between an LED & an
incandescent is a few dollars, right? Over, say, 10 years, that's less
than $0.50/year. Doesn't seem worth the time it took to post your
opinion.

you are the rude one. Why spend $5.00 on a room or closet that is only lit
a couple minutes a year? Better to give the extra five bucks to charity.
Think carefully if you wish to reply - it may not be worth the time for
another of your silly posts.

That is a huge problem for people on a well. Typically you have 20-40
or 30-50 pressure switches and these heads are set up for ~80 PSI

We just bought a new American Standard that gets the job done but we
do occasionally have that problem of it simply sending the cargo down
the pipe a ways without getting it all the way out. One more reason to
wash your hands ;-)
(the extra water will send it on it's way)

Two issues. Cost vs payback period and the fact that CFLs will fail
sooner if they are turned on and off a lot. Again it affects your
payback time. You eat many hours of expected service every time you do
an off on cycle.

A. Do rational people really spend time worrying about the difference of
a few dollars for one light bulb in a closet? I'd just leave the bulb
that's in there in there until it burns out, if it ever does, then
replace it with an LED, which will probably be much cheaper by then.
Even if I only live in that house for 10 years, the difference is just
pennies a year.
B. How did CFLs get into this discussion?

40 watt equivalent closet capable LEDs are quite regularly available
around here for $2.50 or less with a coupon. I have half a dozen LED
units that would work in a closet that I bought for $2.25 each with NO
coupon.

We are probably using around 1000 watts or so to light the house at
night. We prefer the quality of light given by incandescents and can
afford the electric bill.

They are thugs. Violent, psychopathic thugs. (Refer to any history book
for the body count.) The only real difference between government and
the Mafia is that that the Mob has considerably less blood on its hands.

Every act of government is an act of violence. Here you are basically
stating that you believe the best approach to designing toilets is to
have a cadre of armed goons force your values ("smaller toilets") on
others under threat of violence.

Time to rethink your position. The color of LED today is every bit as
good as the incans. Not like the sickly green of the old CFL.
Why use 1000 watts if you can get the same lighting for 100 watts. The
savings will be enough to go out for a decent dinner and a couple of
drinks.
It may not be a big deal if you are talking table lamps, but if you are
talking ceiling lights or outdoor, instead of changing bulbs every 1200
hours, change them every 15,000 hours.
You are free to do what you want, but I don't see where you have any
advantage over LED in 2014.

No we are NOT and THAT is the real point.
I am not free to buy or sell 100 Watt incandescent bulbs even if there is a demand for them.
If you feel it is a trivial issue, why did the govt waste it's time creating a law about it.
If you think violence is not ultimatly involved, try selling untaxed cigarettes on the street in NYC.
Mark

Few people know that part of the Eric Garner story. It was another one
of Bloomberg's screwing with people that was involved. He wants to
control your salt, the size of your soda, and stop you from smoking at
all costs. So, with the sin taxes so high in NYC that a pack of cigarettes
costs $14, guys like Garner were making a buck selling illegal loosies.
Bloomberg and the libs responded by passing a law that increased the
penalties that went into effect this year. And just the month before
the cops arrested Garner, the police brass ordered street patrols to
enforce the new law. That, together with a legitimate store owner
filing a complaint, resulted in the cops busting Garner.
And then the libs say, "It was just a pack of cigarettes....", making
it sound like the cops were unreasonable, should have looked the other
way, etc.

Illogical. First, it's more like $5 or even less. Second, the savings is
not per minute of use, but per year of use (on or off). If the bulb is
going to last 10-20 years, saving $4-$5 is pennies/year and not worth my
time to even consider. But then you know what your time is worth.
But then I don't think this is really about money. I think it's about a
bunch of anti-government reactionaries digging in their heels where they
can. Fox news viewers, for sure.

Error, error, that does not compute. Both are measuring the same
thing.
If the bulb is

Ahh, the old Fox News slam. I'll bet like most of the others that
slam Fox, you never watch it. And now folks who think people should
be left to choose whatever bulb they want are anti-govt reactionaries?
Good grief. If something is so good, it doesn't need the govt to
force it down citizens throats. Leave me free to choose.

Log in

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.